Did Mary know her killer?

[Pcdunn]

Singing is very popular among the Irish, any time two or more get together, whether in a family home, or down at the pub.

I have finally just voted "yes", because it does seem to me that someone who knew Mary and really wanted to send a message about how much he hated her was responsible for slicing away her face.
But... if she knew a close male friend or ex-husband wanted to threaten her, why let him in? Either she wasn't aware of it in any measure...

OR was it a woman friend? We know she often had visitors, and a woman will open a door more readily to a woman she knows than to a stranger of either sex. The singing indicating she, or "they", were awake very late isn't too uncommon. I've read that in the past people tended to sleep in shifts, waking in the middle of the night, doing work or even visiting, and then returning to bed until dawn. More common in the eras before the electric light, of course, but Whitechapel could well have qualified in places, perhaps.

I know, no woman was seen entering the apartment. But a woman was seen leaving it-- possibly "Jill the Ripper"? Hmmm. The plot thickens...

[Michael W Richards]

Exactly.
singing to and hanging out for over an hour with someone and bringing them to your home, is not the usual act of a prostitute/prostitution, let alone one overly concerned about money and thinking they need to procure several clients rather quickly. Nor is it behavior one would normally do with a complete stranger.

That extra point in bold is right on the money Abby, and extremely relevant to the thread.

Best regards

[Abby Normal]

To correct the above, yes, there is evidence that Mary brought someone home before midnight, however, there is also evidence that she was heard to sing songs until shortly after 1am. Not a "trick" that any prostitute would be called upon to perform. There is also evidence from a witness who is later discredited that Mary was seen out of her room after 11:45pm, so, its not evidence that anyone need believe was accurately and/or honestly reported. Therefore the only man that we know of that Mary took to her room after Barnett left was Blotchy and with the additional evidence of her singing while in the room with him, we have zero evidence that Mary ever took anyone to her room to perform sex acts for money.

Pretending that some evidence is credible when we have the historical records that indicate the police thought otherwise shortly after the statement was given...within a few days....in order to enable some speculation that she was soliciting that last night...that has everything to do with preconceptions and nothing to do with the actual believed evidence.

If people would stick to the accepted evidence this argument wouldn't need to be repeated, and summarily debunked, so often.

Cheers

Exactly.
singing to and hanging out for over an hour with someone and bringing them to your home, is not the usual act of a prostitute/prostitution, let alone one overly concerned about money and thinking they need to procure several clients rather quickly. Nor is it behavior one would normally do with a complete stranger.

[Michael W Richards]

And people always act reasonably don't they, especially when they're drunk and mid 20 years in age are nothing but rational at any time even when drunk.

What is reasonable is that people, when they go out and get drunk and then bring a friend home for a little song, is that they invite the person to stay or let them out when they become tired.

That's what the evidence here indicates GUT, one of those scenarios.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

There is evidence that, on the night of her death, she took a blotchy-faced man back to her room and there is evidence that she did the same with a prosperous-looking man in an astrakhan coat, both late at night and both on the same evening. There is no proof that these encounters were between a prostitute and her client and there is no obligation to take the testimony of the witnesses concerned at face value. There is, however, evidence that Kelly took men back to her room on the night of her death and, whilst there is no proof that these were for the purposes of prostitution, that is a not unreasonable interpretation. It's one thing to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses making these claims, but another thing entirely to pretend that such evidence does not exist.

To correct the above, yes, there is evidence that Mary brought someone home before midnight, however, there is also evidence that she was heard to sing songs until shortly after 1am. Not a "trick" that any prostitute would be called upon to perform. There is also evidence from a witness who is later discredited that Mary was seen out of her room after 11:45pm, so, its not evidence that anyone need believe was accurately and/or honestly reported. Therefore the only man that we know of that Mary took to her room after Barnett left was Blotchy and with the additional evidence of her singing while in the room with him, we have zero evidence that Mary ever took anyone to her room to perform sex acts for money.

Pretending that some evidence is credible when we have the historical records that indicate the police thought otherwise shortly after the statement was given...within a few days....in order to enable some speculation that she was soliciting that last night...that has everything to do with preconceptions and nothing to do with the actual believed evidence.

If people would stick to the accepted evidence this argument wouldn't need to be repeated, and summarily debunked, so often.

Cheers

[DRoy]

Absolutely, there is even a comment in the press within a day or two of Kelly's murder that Dorset St. has returned to normal. That you wouldn't think such a murder had taken place by the activities going on here, back to normal.

People have short memories.

Jon,

That's the notorious Dorset Street though, it can be somewhat expected. Once again, some were in dire need, others weren't (including some living in the court). I don't see Mary as being one of those in dire need and believe the evidence supports that view.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

She was a prostitute, that by definition must rate as risky behaviour.

GUT,

Okay but then that had nothing to do with her age as women of all ages had to resort to that. Her situation being a bit different though as we don't know how long she had resorted back to selling herself.

No I'm on the fence about her knowing her killer, but your argument that she wouldn't take someone home because she was frightened of the "Ripper" just doesn't do it, do you think any of the victims after No. 1 [whoever that was] wasn't worried, but necessity took them into risk.

It wasn't just that she was frightened. She had the 'luxery' to know more about the murders than those before her. She also knew what street she lived on and that the murders were within minutes of it. All the witnesses have her drinking in pubs, not working the streets. We know she took friends home and allowed them to stay, the same can't be said about clients.

What we don't know is whether she had other means of income, when she would solicit (maybe only during light?), where she solicited, how often she went with a client, who her clientele was, where she took her clients, whether she ever took a client to her room, etc.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

Jon,

The authorities did relax, but do you really think the women did?

Absolutely, there is even a comment in the press within a day or two of Kelly's murder that Dorset St. has returned to normal. That you wouldn't think such a murder had taken place by the activities going on here, back to normal.

People have short memories.

[c.d.]

"She was a prostitute, that by definition must rate as risky behaviour."

An excellent point, GUT.

As far as a reluctance to take a client home, she certainly would have been aware that soliciting on the street was no guarantee of safety as evidenced by the previous murders.

I would also have to assume that taking a client home would cost the client more money and I would have to think that could have or would have factored into the decision to do so.

My opinion is that Mary knew her killer but only casually and let him in herself. I have to imagine that soliciting on the street especially when it was cold or rainy could not have been particularly pleasant. Having a client come to you whether expected or unexpected is having some of the work done for you. If she was in need of money, rent/food/drink, would she really want to pass up that opportunity?

c.d.

[GUT]

GUT,

Of course some do, but what do you have to support she was engaging in risky behaviour? Just because she was apparently young in age (late 20's), doesn't mean she acted her age. Do witnesses paint her as acting that way? Does her life story make her sound that way? Not to me.

She was a prostitute, that by definition must rate as risky behaviour.

I've at least presented my argument why I believe she knew her killer, is your argument she didn't know her killer just because young people sometimes do risky things?

Cheers
DRoy

No I'm on the fence about her knowing her killer, but your argument that she wouldn't take someone home because she was frightened of the "Ripper" just doesn't do it, do you think any of the victims after No. 1 [whoever that was] wasn't worried, but necessity took them into risk.

[DRoy]

And 20 somethings never engage in risky behaviour do they?

GUT,

Of course some do, but what do you have to support she was engaging in risky behaviour? Just because she was apparently young in age (late 20's), doesn't mean she acted her age. Do witnesses paint her as acting that way? Does her life story make her sound that way? Not to me.

I've at least presented my argument why I believe she knew her killer, is your argument she didn't know her killer just because young people sometimes do risky things?

Cheers
DRoy

[GUT]

And 20 somethings never engage in risky behaviour do they?

[DRoy]

Because the authorities had begun to relax, nothing had happened for 6 weeks.
It was a false calm...

Jon,

The authorities did relax, but do you really think the women did? He was still getting daily press, Mary was already scared of him, and had been without her protector Barnett for a bit over a week. I doubt she was very relaxed.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

Ok, so perhaps the client was not unknown? We have no indication either way. She may have known both Blotchy and Astrachan.
However, surely most of her clients were 'random', I don't think we should entertain the idea they made appointments.

Jon,

As we don't know how often she solicited or how often she actually went with a client, it would be speculation to assume most clients were 'random'.

No reason to take him home?
It was raining that night, why would she choose to perform in the rain when she has a room available?
Who bought her the food, Blotchy, Astrachan, or someone else?

No reason to take a 'random' customer home. Surely there were spots other than her room that would shelter her and a 'random' customer if he existed. Maybe she bought her food? Maybe it was "Danny" or "Julia"?

Good enough reason's to take them home, afterall, the Ripper never struck indoors.

They are reasons to take 'randoms' home sure, I just don't think they were good enough reasons for her to actually do it that night.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

There is evidence that, on the night of her death, she took a blotchy-faced man back to her room and there is evidence that she did the same with a prosperous-looking man in an astrakhan coat, both late at night and both on the same evening. There is no proof that these encounters were between a prostitute and her client and there is no obligation to take the testimony of the witnesses concerned at face value. There is, however, evidence that Kelly took men back to her room on the night of her death and, whilst there is no proof that these were for the purposes of prostitution, that is a not unreasonable interpretation. It's one thing to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses making these claims, but another thing entirely to pretend that such evidence does not exist.

The fact Kelly was not fully dressed when found in bed, as was the norm according to her neighbours, is a good indication she was entertaining someone. And that particular 'someone' was her killer.